List run attachments

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the return includes metadata and download URLs, which is useful but does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, or data volume. This is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the title, but it is not harmful. Overall, it is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 1-parameter read-only list operation, the description covers the essential return shape (metadata and download URLs) and the schema covers the parameter. Given the lack of an output schema, this is sufficient, though mentioning pagination or sorting would have made it more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single run_id parameter, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. The tool description adds no parameter-specific context, but none is needed given the schema's completeness.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns attachment metadata and download URLs, and the 'TestRun' prefix indicates it operates on runs, distinguishing it from sibling attachment-listing tools for cases, plans, and executions. However, the first sentence mostly restates the method name, and the run scope is only implied, not explicitly stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kiwi_case_list_attachments or kiwi_plan_list_attachments. There is no exclusionary context or mention of prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.